JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the intervenor. 2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the appeal authority in Ceiling Appeal No. 32/10/1995-96. By that order the appeal authority has set aside the original order dated 11.2.1994 and remanded the proceedings to the Prescribed Authority to pass an order after conducting proceedings, denovo. 3. Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings before the appeal authority arose upon an earlier order of the writ Court dated 04.4.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11478 of 1997 (Suresh Vs. Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur and others). While setting aside the earlier appeal order dated 16.12.1996, the writ Court made an order of limited remand to consider two issues other than the issue of date of birth of the petitioner Suresh as the findings of the Prescribed Authority that Suresh was born on 08.5.1950 was affirmed. 4. Clearly the appeal authority has erred in reversing that finding of the Prescribed Authority. In any case such finding would remain in teeth of the findings recorded by the writ Court. Therefore, the same was invalid and unforceable. 5. As to the other issues on which proceedings were remanded namely the delay and the denial of opportunity to the State to lead evidence, it has been submitted that there was no delay in filing objection under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the petitioner was never issued any notice. He filed his objection upon becoming aware of the proceedings. Last, it has been submitted that the State had ample opportunity to file objection. All objection filed by the State were considered. The appeal authority has mechanically allowed the appeal and granted the State second opportunity to file objections. 6. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that at present the proceedings have only been remanded. All issues have been left open. Therefore, no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The appeal authority has mechanically allowed the appeal and granted the State second opportunity to file objections. 6. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that at present the proceedings have only been remanded. All issues have been left open. Therefore, no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Otherwise it has been submitted that no findings of fact had been recorded by the writ Court as may have prevented the appeal authority from recording its own finding. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it is not in dispute that the proceedings under the Act to declare surplus land were initiated in the year 1972. In those proceedings the father of the petitioner Satyanarain alone was noticed. No notice appear to have been issued to the petitioner at that stage. On 1.2.1975, the Prescribed Authority declared 10.79 Acres of land surplus. It is thereafter that the petitioner-Suresh filed his objection under Section 11(2) of the Act. The same were allowed on 11.2.1994. In that order, the Prescribed Authority specifically considered the issue of date of birth of the present petitioner-Suresh. It recorded a finding to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner was 18.5.1950 as found recorded in the scholar register and the Transfer Certificate issued with reference to the petitioner by the Principal Sri Krishna Inter College, Semra, Katkuiya, Deoria. Same date of birth was found recorded in the family register. In fact the said order further records that the Prescribed Authority had examined the original family register and scholar register. He thereafter recorded a finding accepting the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.5.1950. 8. Upon that order being set aside in the appeal by order dated 16.12.1996, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11478 of 1997. That writ petition was allowed by the following order dated 04.4.2003: "Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nageshwar Prasad Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. The objection filed by the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1960 was allowed on 11.2.1994 by the Prescribed Authority. Against this order dated 11.2.1994, passed by the Prescribed Authority an appeal was filed by the State. The objection filed by the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1960 was allowed on 11.2.1994 by the Prescribed Authority. Against this order dated 11.2.1994, passed by the Prescribed Authority an appeal was filed by the State. The same was allowed on 16.12.1996 by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the appeal filed by the State was time barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that as the petitioner was born before coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he has got his share in the land in dispute, which is Seer-Khudkasht is a finding of fact. However, reversing this finding the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur has allowed the appeal arbitrarily. In the opinion of this Court the finding recorded by the prescribed authority is in consonance with the provisions of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur with a direction to decide the same according to law, keeping in view the observation of this court made above. There shall be no order as to costs. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute." 9. Undisputedly, the aforesaid order was not challenged by any party. It has attained finality. Brief as it may be, the writ Court has clearly considered the challenge raised in that petition to the findings as to the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter, it had opined that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority with respect to the same was in consonance with law. Consequently, after setting aside the appeal order dated 16.12.1996 the Writ Court further directed the appeal authority to pass fresh order keeping in mind the observations made by it in the earlier part of its order. 10. In view of such opinion expressed by the writ Court and boundation made for the compliance to be made by the appeal authority, the proceedings in remand that arose before the appeal authority, were proceedings of limited remand. 10. In view of such opinion expressed by the writ Court and boundation made for the compliance to be made by the appeal authority, the proceedings in remand that arose before the appeal authority, were proceedings of limited remand. Thus, the appeal authority could record fresh findings after hearing parties afresh, except to the extent, this Court had expressed its own definite opinion namely as to the dispute of date of birth of the petitioner-Suresh. 11. Once, it was held by the writ Court that the finding of the Prescribed Authority on that issue was in consonance with law and that order of the writ Court attained finality, it did not survive for any further consideration or debate before any authority as to the correct date of birth of the petitioner. That date stood finally determined at 18.5.1950. To that extent the impugned order of the appeal authority dated 29.9.2021 cannot be sustained. 12. As to the other aspects, it appears that the appeal authority has only made an order of remand. Two surviving issues are still available to be considered by the Prescribed Authority being issue numbers 1 and 2 as noted in the order dated 29.9.2021. To that extent the impugned order dated 29.9.2021 is only an interlocutory order which does not warrant any interference by the writ Court. 13. Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the appeal authority insofar it seeks to reopen the issue of date of birth of the petitioner, is erroneous and without jurisdiction being in teeth of the earlier findings recorded by the writ Court. That order is set aside in part, to that extent. 14. Remaining part of the order is sustained. Parties shall now appear before the Prescribed Authority on the date fixed as per the notice that may be served on them. 15. The proceedings may continue and be concluded as expeditiously as possible, without allowing any undue or long adjournments to either party, preferably, within three months from the date of copy of this order being produced before the appeal authority. During the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, status quo as on date, shall be maintained by the parties.